Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me respond briefly to the two provisions that my colleague from New York referred to. That same letter that indicated that the union would not oppose if we move the labor provisions is in strong support of the immunity provision for customs inspectors. Rarely do you have a job which basically says you will examine people as they come across the border. There are clearly provisions, customs guidelines, that determine racial, religious, ethnic and gender profiling that prohibit that but do allow some protections for the customs officer. If anyone would listen to the case histories of some of these cases that are in the courts, for example notwithstanding the fact that someone was searched and contraband was found, they nevertheless wanted to sue because they did not believe the customs officials had a right to search them. And that was notwithstanding the fact that the obvious evidence of the contraband on them was more than enough reason for the customs official to search them. Mr. Chairman, I believe the substitute is a good-faith effort, but they are trying to walk a fine line; and it is the majority's opinion that there is no fine line that you can walk. Because if you provide inspectors immunity, and the Federal Government supports that immunity under a very clear guideline that would not violate any racial, religious, ethnic or gender profiling approach, then they are saying the Federal Government should waive its sovereign immunity notwithstanding. That then creates a new unprecedented class of Federal torts and we are right back in the courtroom with years and years of lives of people who were simply carrying out their job under a very narrow proscribed set of rules. Because even if they do that, there is no protection against this new form of Federal torts if the Federal Government waves its sovereign immunity. It seems to me in this particular era, we either back up these people or we do not. If they are following the rules, we should protect them. If they are not, there are clear procedures to make sure they are treated in a manner they should be treated in if they violate administrative policy in carrying out their jobs. So in looking at the bill itself, I do hope Members appreciate the broad support that the underlying bill has, and that although the substitute focuses on a couple of areas that will be addressed beyond the immunity question, if we are going to allow a true examination of the ways in which we can protect this country, under a search warrant, it seems entirely appropriate that based upon sufficient suspicion you ought to be able to read a piece of outbound mail. Under the courts of this country, you would only be allowed to then take a look at what the content of the mail was. But it seems to me if you can have the ability to deal with it with inbound mail, you certainly ought to, with full court protection, have the ability to look at it in terms of outbound mail as well. As we are now becoming more and more aware through the news media of the ability of various terrorist groups to communicate using the modern technology which allows for rapid communication, and certainly would not ignore the good old-fashioned postage stamp on an envelope, if it was given unusual constitutional protection and they knew that no official of the government could, even with a court order, take a look at what was in a particular envelope that appeared very, very suspicious. We believe it is an essential part of the bill; and we would like to retain it in the bill. Therefore, my colleagues should vote for the bill and against the substitute. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, and that he be allowed to disperse the time in such manner as he sees fit.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This piece of legislation which was up before us some time ago on the suspension calendar is modest but extremely important. Obviously following September 11, and the creation of the homeland security structure, more and more people in positions of responsibility have begun to realize that one of the ways we can assure the security of Americans is to provide a more seamless control of our borders. Historically, Customs officials have had an important, significant role to play normally in the area of commercial intercourse or commerce. To the degree that they are going to be asked to integrate with other border enforcement structures such as security and the like, this bill becomes one of the assisting tools in making that happen. There are other uses looking at antidrug smuggling, antiterrorist, antichild pornography provisions, and in preparing this bill to come to the floor under a rule, since it did not get the two-thirds required on suspension, notwithstanding the fact it got a significant majority vote, the members of the majority looked at the bill and said are there any areas of this bill that we would still like to retain but that probably are far less essential today than they were when the committee moved on this bill some months ago? Clearly, one of the obvious areas is an attempt to adjust what has been described as an inappropriate or unfair compensation structure for Customs officials at particular locales. Notwithstanding the fact that we believe those adjustments are overdue and need to be made, we offered to the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on Rules accepted, the willingness to delete those provisions which appeared to be controversial. The labor union that represents Customs workers is not opposed to the bill in its current form, as they said in their letter, as long as this provision does not come back in. I can assure anyone that if we make a change, our goal is not to change it today and then rechange it tomorrow. The commitment is to make the change now, because the other items in the bill are far more important to move forward and make into law than a debate that has been going on for some time, and I am quite sure will go on for an additional time. Therefore, this bill is before us today in a form that should not illicit significant opposition, but that we would be very desirous of a significant bipartisan vote to let the American people know that in making sure that our borders are safe and protected, that the Customs Service is in the forefront of moving to the new structure to secure homeland security. This particular bill goes a long way toward assisting in that effort. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3129.

Mr. THOMAS of California

Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join the people of Tulare County and the United States of America in thanking those peace officers who have made the supreme sacrifice while working to enforce our laws, protect our homes, and guard our lives. Events of the past year have served as a poignant reminder of the selfless dedication to duty that peace officers demonstrate every day, and those of us who served in the 105th Congress were the direct beneficiaries of this devotion, when two Capitol Hill Police Officers fell in the line of duty. The Tulare County Sheriff's Department's Peace Officer Memorial Service and dedication of the Peace Officer Memorial was held yesterday, May 15, 2002, in Visalia, California. This monument pays tribute to the nineteen Tulare County peace officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. To honor their noble sacrifices, the people of Tulare County have come together to donate the funds needed to make this lasting tribute to these brave individuals a reality. This monument honors eight members of the Tulare County Sheriff's Department, three members of the California Highway Patrol, and eight members of various other law enforcement agencies located in Tulare County, including one federal officer from the National Parks Service. The Tulare County peace officers who have been killed in the line of duty are: Deputy John N. Wren, Deputy Oscar A. Beaver, Constable Robert A. Carter, Officer George Owen Barlow, Officer Norman A. Kessler, Officer Richard L. Simpson, Sergeant Charles Garrison, Officer Richard W. Smith, Deputy Ross C. Cochran, Officer John R. Ellis, Deputy Vernon L. Cox, Deputy Carlos Magana, Officer Thomas J. Schroth, Detective Monty L. Conley, Detective Joe R. Landin, Deputy Michael R. Egan, Reserve Officer Ronald Hills, Ranger James Randall Morgenson, and Officer James J. Rapozo. In closing, I thank these and every other law enforcement officer for their sacrifices made to protect and serve their fellow citizens.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I suppose as a rhetorical device it is useful to come down and point fingers and claim shame. Actually, the bill has been an enormous success. It has reduced the rolls by half; and yet President Bush has said keep the funding at a steady level, i.e., fewer people same amount of money. In this bill, we are putting more money back in. I guess when we take away from them what they believe is their divine right, to be for people in poverty, and for women with children, and we actually show compassion and we actually put money where our mouth is and we actually put a program out that really works instead of all of the rhetoric that have been used for years about wanting to help these people, and I think helping people is moving them from welfare to work, not saying how desperate they are, making speeches on the floor, and voting against programs that actually work. We have a program that actually works. We are putting more money in relative to the people available, and we are putting even more money in with this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and ask unanimous consent that the gentleman control the balance of the time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would note that the gentleman from New York voted ``no'' in 1996; and as a matter of fact, quoted in the People's Weekly World, he said that if Clinton signs the bill, he would be, quote, ``throwing 1 million children into poverty.'' I have here the most recent edition of the Governor of New York's statement on welfare in New York. It says on page 33: ``Teen pregnancy rates and teen births have declined. Child support has increased and fewer children are living in poverty today than in 1994.'' What we did was right in 1996, and what we are doing is right today, notwithstanding the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) vote against us apparently both times. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a member of the Committee on Agriculture, who with their contributions in terms of the food stamp component of this bill have made a significant contribution to make sure that Americans in need have those needs met. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman well knows that the proficiency she just referred to in the farm bill for immigrants was signed by President Bush and moved out of this House. However, in an attempt to make sure that they do not agree with the fundamental thrust of this proposition, they have a substitute that spends $70 billion of money that is not covered in any budget to show that they rate higher on the compassion level, because they will never accept the proposition that Republicans care, Republicans are concerned, and Republicans have programs that work. They prefer illusory solutions to the real thing. Republicans offered the real thing in 1996, and they offer it today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Since the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) wants me to explain the reference about cesspools referred to by me, I referred to it as a cesspool of red ink. And if anybody does not believe $24 billion of State government mismanagement is not a red ink cesspool, then I do not know what you would call it.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was prepared to yield the gentleman from New Jersey a little more time so that he could cover up his tracks, because 6 years ago he voted to keep people on the program, he was opposed to the program. Now, of course, what they want to do is outbid people with Monopoly money to show how compassionate they are and how people work. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, in response to the gentlewoman I agree with her. Although we often talk about it, there is no reference in the legislation. Notwithstanding the fact the substitute will not pass, the underlying bill, I will pledge to the gentlewoman when we go to conference, representing one of the poorest rural counties in California.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, as a Member from California, California currently, under the Democratic Governor, is $24 billion in the red and this would add another $1 billion over 5 years of an induced stick, if they want to receive the illusory benefits under the bill. Once again, as my colleagues can see in the well, I find it ironic that just 6 years ago, the gentlewoman from California said, ``I hope children throughout this country never have to feel the pain of this legislation. I hope it does not pass.'' Indeed, there was offered a substitute which would have saved money in an attempt to not have the legislation go forward. Of course, now that we know the process works, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said it works, they are now offering a substitute which throws money at the problem.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I guess one of the things we could do is run an auction on bills like this in which each provision goes to the highest bidder. If that is the case, our friends on the other side of the aisle would win every time, that is, as long as we were using Monopoly money. But if we were using real money in terms of having to pay for what it is that we say we are offering to the American people, then the proposal that came out of our committees that we have just finished discussing fits within the budget that this House passed. The program that was partially outlined by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) adds up to about $70 billion over 10 years. There is no money provided for it. The gentleman got up after virtually every speaker and talked about an unfunded mandate. What the gentleman will not talk about is the fact that they have over a billion dollars imposed upon States in their proposal requiring States to meet an inflation number in the States. That produces a mandate on the States of more than a billion dollars. So what we really want to do as we discuss this is not who is able to stack up the most Monopoly money in front of someone as to show how much they care about this issue, how much of this is real, how much does it have a chance to become law, and how much does it fit within the other spending patterns that we have already committed ourselves to. Mr. Speaker, that is the real question, and there this substitute is fatally flawed. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do want to correct the record, because I indicated that the substitute bill requires a mandatory payment by the States of $1 billion. My understanding is that that is only in the fifth year. My correction is that actually the Congressional Budget Office says that that is an inflation mandate of $3.6 billion over 5 years. We have fallen into the lexicon of the Federal Government and the State. The State pays, the Federal Government pays. Obviously it is the taxpayer who pays, whether it is at the State or the Federal level. So as we are discussing the costs of these bills, let us remember, somebody has to put up the taxes to pay for them. In regard to the direction and the thrust, I find it interesting that 6 years ago when we first offered this proposal on the floor, the substitute that was offered, in fact, saved $50 billion over 6 years because they thought the enticement of saving money in this system would convince enough people to vote with them rather than the reform of requiring people to work. Six years later, when they know that requiring people to work works, their substitute now spends $20 billion over 5 years. And so if you cannot beat them, join them, and throw a few more dollars at the problem seems to be the direction that the substitute is going. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that the gentleman from Wisconsin in his substitute is willing to impose $58.5 million of mandated increases to the taxpayers of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the gentleman from Maryland at the same time he urges that is telling the hard-working taxpayers of Maryland that he wants to create a $61 million stick for them to receive any of the proposals that he is talking about. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. THOMAS. There are, I can assure you, and I represent the poorest. And agricultural counties by nature of the cyclical work tend to be the poorest and have the highest unemployment and low literacy. Child care needs are very high. That is why we put the provisions in the bill. But we will emphasize that the States should respond with a rural program as well as an urban one. Rather than assuming that they will do that, that language will be in the bill.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues I will not take 5 minutes. We have heard a lot of numbers thrown around. Let me provide my colleagues an accurate picture of exactly what is going on. As of September of last year, granted it was September of 2001, there was $7.4 billion of TANF money under my committee's jurisdiction that had not been spent. In this legislation we said, you can use whatever is left for child care. As a matter of fact, if you examine this legislation and you utilize TANF money and if the comments of the gentleman from Connecticut and the gentlewoman from California are accurate and the States wish to use the TANF money for child care, they have available $170 billion for child care if they choose to make that decision. Now, what my colleagues are saying is that they want to put $11 billion additionally in the bill. What my colleagues need to know is that there is $24 billion in this bill already. What we have advocated is taking it to $27.4 billion. They are advocating taking it to $35 billion. The difference between our position and their position? Ours is paid for and theirs is not. If my colleagues want to fund a program that is not paid for, vote for their motion to recommit. If my colleagues want to have a responsible and appropriate program that is paid for, vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote for the passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk have the authority to make technical and conforming changes in the engrossment of H.R. 4737, the bill just passed.